4.8 Article

Risk stratification after acute myocardial infarction by heart rate turbulence

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 108, 期 10, 页码 1221-1226

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000088783.34082.89

关键词

arrhythmia; heart rate; mortality; myocardial infarction; nervous system, autonomic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Retrospective postinfarction studies revealed that decreased heart rate turbulence (HRT) indicates increased risk for subsequent death. This is the first prospective study to validate HRT in a large cohort of the reperfusion era. Methods and Results - One thousand four hundred fifty-five survivors of an acute myocardial infarction ( age < 76 years) in sinus rhythm were enrolled. HRT onset ( TO) and slope (TS) were calculated from Holter records. Patients were classified into the following HRT categories: category 0 if both TO and TS were normal, category 1 if either TO or TS was abnormal, or category 2 if both TO and TS were abnormal. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. During a follow-up of 22 months, 70 patients died. Multivariately, HRT category 2 was the strongest predictor of death ( hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 12.2), followed by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <= 30% (4.5; 2.6 to 7.8), diabetes mellitus (2.5; 1.6 to 4.1), age >= 65 years (2.4; 1.5 to 3.9), and HRT category 1 (2.4; 1.2 to 4.9). LVEF <= 30% had a sensitivity of 27% at a positive predictive accuracy level of 23%. The combined criteria of LVEF <= 30%, HRT category 2 or LVEF > 30%, age greater than or equal to 65 years, diabetes mellitus, and HRT category 2 had a sensitivity of 24% at a positive predictive accuracy level of 37%. The combined criteria of LVEF less than or equal to 30% or LVEF > 30%, age greater than or equal to 65 years, diabetes mellitus, and HRT category 1 or 2 had a sensitivity of 44% at a positive predictive accuracy level of 23%. Conclusions - HRT is a strong predictor of subsequent death in postinfarction patients of the reperfusion era.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据